Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd vs MADHO SINGH

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 149 of 2007 - Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Madho Singh by which while dismissing appeal order of the District Forum allowing the complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant -Respondent had taken electricity connection from Opposite Party/ Petitioner and was paying dues regularly. Opposite Party in bill of December, 2005 raised demand of Rs. 30,759/ - plus Rs. 219/ - whereas no amount was due. Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, Complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that Complainant had 60 HP connection with maximum 50 KVA demand whereas Complainant has used 51.9, 50.8, 50.1 KVA respectively in November, 2002, December, 2002 and January, 2003 and in such circumstances, on account of use of excess load, demand has been raised and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and quashed the demand. Appeal filed by the Opposite Party was dismissed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this Revision Petition has been filed.

NONE appeared for the Respondent even after service and he was proceeded ex -parte. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on account of use of excess load, complainant ''s case fall within the purview of Section 126 of Indian Electricity Act and such dispute was not maintainable before Consumer Forum, hence, Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. As per written statement filed by Opposite Party, Complainant was using excess load than sanctioned load and use of excess load falls within the purview of Section 126 of Indian Electricity Act as held by Hon ''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8859 of 2011, The Executive Engineer & Anr. VS. M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, : - ''''The expression ''unauthorised use of electricity means '' as appearing in Section 126 of the 2003 Act is an expression of wider connotation and has to be construed purposively in contrast to contextual interpretation while keeping in mind the object and purpose of the Act. The cases of excess load consumption than the connected load inter alia would fall under Explanation (b) (iv) of Section 126 of the 2003 Act, besides it being in violation of Regulations 82 of 106 of the Regulations and terms of the Agreement. ''''

IN the light of aforesaid judgment, it becomes clear that whenever there is consumption of electricity in excess of the sanctioned load, it would amount to unauthorized use of electricity under Section 126 of India Electricity Act. The Hon ''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. VS. Anis Ahmad; III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC), held that if case of the Complainant falls under Section 126 or under 135 -140 of the Electricity Act, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. As Complainant ''s case falls within the purview of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, in the light of Anis Ahmad ''s case, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and in such circumstances, Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.

CONSEQUENT LY , Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed and order dated 28.8.2009 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 149 of 2007 - Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. VS. Madho Singh; and order of District Forum dated 25.11.2006 in Complaint No. 203 of 2005 -Madho Singh VS. Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with liberty to the Respondent to approach appropriate authorities under Indian Electricity Act for redressal of his grievances.